It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

antimatter, good or bad?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
as some of you may know recently CERN have been succesful in creating antimatter. The material is highly unstable and will anhiliate on contact with matter (air, solid objects anything!). One gram can power New York city for 24 hours. but also one gram has the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
So people what do you think should it be used as a power source? Or will someone turn it into the worlds most destructive weaponry. Please post your thoughts here

[edit on 28-3-2005 by danboy785]




posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
what else have they done with things capable of blowing other things up with...BLOWN STUFF UP...(and then promoted it's 'safe' use)...i don't beleive the US nor any other country with this will not want to weild the power of the 'anti-atom'



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
bugga!...double posted


[edit on 28-3-2005 by av8or]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I believe that antimatter is the future. It's only a matter of time before we are able to properly harness and control it. Remember, we use to think that nucluear energy was never going to be used as a power source because of it's unstability. Bottom line is we are fast running out of oil (at least in the US) and we will have no choice to either go steal it from somewhere else (which we are already doing, and that will run out too eventually) or we will have to go for alternative energy sources. Antimatter is the answer.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
The production of AM is very expensive and consumes more energy to make than it gives plus the whole world doesnt even make a gram of the stuff in a year. Maybe in a few years.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Antimatter is just a "matter" of time (pardon the pun
) The cost to produce and control will go down the more it is researched and experimented on. It's expensive now because it's not fully understood yet. But, CERN and other major scientific pursuers would not put so much "energy" (man, I'm on a roll
) into this if it wasn't going to be something that would yeild major benifits.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I'm just thinking that based on the first law of thermodynamics, this isn't going to work, at least as a power source. It would take more energy to create antimatter than the amount of energy you could get out of it. As a weapon, however, I fear that it could be extremely viable, provided that a way of containing the antimatter until the time of detonation could be found. If a natural source of antimatter was found, then power generation would be a whole different story, but I seriously doubt any such source exists. It certainly can't exist on earth, obviously; any contact with matter would have destroyed the antimatter long ago.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
I believe that antimatter is the future.


I don't. DragonDemesne got it right, you need energy to create anti-matter and matter. And if you isolate the anti-matter, well, fine, ok, but you'll get back your energy. You'll actually lose some energy do to the nature of things.

Besides, you can't very well store it. You'd need an anti-matter box, which in turn needs to be stored in an anti-matter box, and so on. There's a reason why we don't see it anywhere, and why Hiroshima-sized explosions just don't go off.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I have to say I think anti-matter is the future as well its just a amazing energy source. Will people make weapons that will dwarf nuclear bombs with It? I would say its very likely as the US has already shown a interest in antimatter bombs. But it will also be used for energy and help greatly in space travel. You have to take the good with the bad just as with any tech.

One comment on how anti-matter works though I beleive anti-matter say (anti-hydrogen) wont exploded atleast to its ful extent when it comes in contact with any matter but has to come in contact with its counter part (hydrogen). I think thats how it works but I could be wrong.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I have to say I think anti-matter is the future as well its just a amazing energy source. Will people make weapons that will dwarf nuclear bombs with It? I would say its very likely as the US has already shown a interest in antimatter bombs. But it will also be used for energy and help greatly in space travel. You have to take the good with the bad just as with any tech.

One comment on how anti-matter works though I beleive anti-matter say (anti-hydrogen) wont exploded atleast to its ful extent when it comes in contact with any matter but has to come in contact with its counter part (hydrogen). I think thats how it works but I could be wrong.


Every single part of matter you have has an anti-matter equivalent. Anti-protons, anti-electrons (positrons), etc. So an anti-hydrogen is made of an anti-proton and an anti-electron. If this touched something else, like, oh, anything, well, the anti-electron would react with the electron there, and the anti-proton with the proton there. Boom. Which is why I can't believe your first statement. It's not feasible. Anti-matter and matter anihilate upon contact, HOW can you transport it/use it? You can't make a bomb out of something if the contents destroys the casing in an instant...

[edit on 3/28/2005 by Amorymeltzer]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Containment is possible as they can use magnetic fields to contain it much as they do with fussion reactors. Those reactors burn so hot they would melt any known substance that would try to contain them.

Antimatter has a magnetic charge and that is how it can be contained and controlled



[edit on 28-3-2005 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 28-3-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   


I'm just thinking that based on the first law of thermodynamics, this isn't going to work, at least as a power source. It would take more energy to create antimatter than the amount of energy you could get out of it.


Not necessarily, as it would also annihalate normal matter, and therefore release the energy in there.

So if it took 10 units (just to keep it simple) of energy to make anti matter, and it contained 8 units of energy itself, but another normal matter atom contained another 8 units, that would yield 16 units in total.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Containment is possible as they can use magnetic fields to contain it much as they do with fussion reactors. Those reactors burn so hot they would melt any known substance that would try to contain them.


What reactors? We ain't got fussion yet...

I'll admit I ruled out using a magnetic field, I don't consider it a feasible option. You don't want to sustain a very precise field in every bomb you build. A slight fluctuation and you'd be sent to kingdom come (is that a proper noun? I suspect it might be...). Not to mention, of course, the engineering nightmare it'd be to design bombs like that relatively easily.

[edit on 3/28/2005 by Amorymeltzer]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
First off, We have no source of power that produces more energy than it consumes. It's just a matter of conversion. You take a ton of coal to produce an X amount of electricity. You take a field of solar panels to produce X amount of electricity. In each case, the energy being produced is far less then the energy that is needed to produce it.

As for the original question; antimatter, good or bad?

The answer is neither.

Antimatter is simply antimatter. It is neither good nor bad. What mankinds decides to do with it is another story.

anyway, Thats my take on it. Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   


First off, We have no source of power that produces more energy than it consumes.


My first comment is still valid:


posted by stumason (me!)
Not necessarily, as it would also annihalate normal matter, and therefore release the energy in there.

So if it took 10 units (just to keep it simple) of energy to make anti matter, and it contained 8 units of energy itself, but another normal matter atom contained another 8 units, that would yield 16 units in total.



[edit on 28/3/05 by stumason]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
No, stu.

When you create anti-matter, you do so by creating matter and anti-matter. The two are created in (roughly, as far as this is concerned) equal amounts. As such, you won't create more than you put in.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Ahhh, so they don't just make anti-matter particles then?

I stand corrected.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Containment is possible as they can use magnetic fields to contain it much as they do with fussion reactors. Those reactors burn so hot they would melt any known substance that would try to contain them.


What reactors? We ain't got fussion yet...

[edit on 3/28/2005 by Amorymeltzer]


They have a few test ones now and they are building more. They contain 100-million-degree plasma suspended in an intense doughnut-shaped magnetic field. Thats much much hotter then the sun and the plan to go even hotter. Without magentic containment they would not be possible

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.jaeri.go.jp...



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Danboy, your calculations are a bit off, to show how much power A-M produces the proper analogie is that 5grams of A-M can power the United States for a week



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Danboy, your calculations are a bit off, to show how much power A-M produces the proper analogie is that 5grams of A-M can power the United States for a week


Misleading. You need the same amount of energy to create the anti-matter, so you really get no where (assuming things are perfect, which they're not).




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join